Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Sushil Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of U.P.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 September, 2014

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the free copy of which has been annexed with the present bail applicant is free copy. As per the Bench Secretary, the said fact could not be ascertained, it appears to the certified copy. It is responsibility of the learned counsel for the applicant, if the said fact appears to be incorrect.
Heard Sri Himkanya Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case after three months. He submits that a false recovery of motorcycle has been shown. In fact, no such recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that when the applicant was arrested two cases of similar nature has been slapped on him. So far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned, which has been explained in para 6 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 03.08.2014.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail .
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Sushil Kumar Shrivastava involved in Case Crime No. 118 of 2014, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S.-Shahganj, District Allahabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.9.2014 Ajay
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sushil Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of U.P.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 September, 2014
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha